Come join Commissioner Scott Maxwell on Saturday, October 23, 2010, at 10:00a.m. at the next Town Hall Meeting to Discuss Lake Worth Utilites "Understanding the Costs and Benefits". This meeting will be held at the Calvary United Methodist Church at 301 1st Avenue South, Lake Worth.

Thursday, October 21, 2010

When they started talking about the Sunset property, I thought that since we were already in a theater, someone should have dragged a dead horse on the stage and started beating it. The facts, something you never hear when people talk about this property, were that neighbors were listened to, compromises made and a whole group of people in that neighborhood were satisfied with the result. What you do hear are the words of people that have a vested interest in the passage of Amendment 4 and saw this as an opportunity to further their cause and the futures of certain candidates.

WORK IN PROGRESS
The place to be last night was the Lake Worth Playhouse for the Neighborhood Association President's Council debates. I remember the place being more crowded in previous years than last night. While the main floor was fairly full, there were still plenty of seats in the back of the theater.

Things started outside around 6 p.m. when the various supporters started arriving to wave signs on Lake Avenue. While I was out there, many in cars slowed up to ask when the debates were, so it did serve as good publicity for the event. The program started around 7 p.m. with Jim Sackett from WPTV doing the moderating. It was more of a debate format this year as each candidate had 25 minutes in a bank that they could use as they wished to respond to questions, pose their own or respond to other candidates' responses. This 25 minutes was exclusive of the 2 minute introduction and wrap-up speeches. At first, I was optimistic about the flexibility of the format, but every candidate left minutes in the bank. The last tallies given ranged between 13 and 15 minutes, so when it was all over, I would estimate that everyone had about 10 minutes left. That's unfortunate since the candidates' missed opportunities to discuss water rate increases and could have clarified the facts regarding some of the issues.

I am uploading YouTube videos of the introduction speeches. Most came out intact - I missed the very first part of McVoy's and only got a portion of Maxwell's due to issues with the camera. Stay tuned.

Carla Blockson and Lisa Maxwell got some good licks in. After a long, rambling response by Chris McVoy on all the wonders of the beach project, heaping wreaths at the feet of the current Commission's efforts, Blockson immediately pointed out that the original question was: How are you going to make Lake Worth attractive to businesses? She went on to say that the difference in utility rates between FPL and Lake Worth is substantial enough to deter businesses from locating here. Just before, Commissioner Mulvehill talked all about the beach in answer to the same question, suggesting that once completed, the beach will draw 500,000 additional tourists to Lake Worth. Where are these numbers coming from? The beach is really not going to be that different than what it is today, even though we are spending $12 million on the overall project. No one brought up the curious connection between Commissioner Mulvehill's "passion" for the beach and her substantial contributions from tenants there. Maxwell talked about "utility crack" meaning the money that is generated by the electric and water utilities that is funneled into the general fund.

A neighbor who attended last night came up to me afterwards and said, "She looks like she's from Palm Beach in that suit, that's not Lake Worth - who is she representing?" This was referring to Commissioner Mulvehill's silk suit. His words, not mine. I hope she has other clothes to wear, because that's all that we have seen her in during the campaign. I think it's an attempt to give a "gossamer" quality to her. Another friend told me about how a local real estate person, who specializes in west of Dixie properties, called him and asked if he could put Mulvehill and McVoy signs in his yard. Now, who is really in the pockets of real estate people?

Click title for link to the expected, anticipated and predestined editorial from the Palm Beach Post. It is so out of touch with the realities Lake Worth faces, it scarcely deserves a read. Whatever you do, do not buy the newspaper, cancel your subscription if you still have one and do not buy individual editions from the newsstand. No where do they examine the fact that property values have dropped the most in Lake Worth of any of the 38 municipalities in Palm Beach County. There is no mention of the ominous and numerous lawsuits hanging out there, based in large part on the actions of this Commission's ruling trio. I guess they think there is no need to point out that the 33460 zip code has 14 of 15 at-risk youth factors - more than any other zip code in Palm Beach County.

By endorsing the favorites of Commissioner Jennings' cabal, it takes away any credibility that the Post might have enjoyed in the past. Let's hope the voters can see through the smokescreen.

Tuesday, October 19, 2010

Mulvehill's mother was born in Romania, which became a member of the European Union last year. She's obtaining Romanian citizenship, which she estimates will have taken about three years, a ton of paperwork, $750 in fees and a trip to the Romanian consulate in Washington.

But once she receives the passport, probably early next year, she'll be able settle anywhere in the EU.

"I recognized for the first time in my life that being American had limits," Mulvehill said, "and that if I really wanted to become what I call a global citizen, then I needed to tap into all my resources to expand my ability to serve entrepreneurs not just in Lake Worth, which is one town, and not just in Florida or in America or North America, but on the globe."

Sunday, October 17, 2010

Signs don't vote, people do. I remember on election day last year being at the polling location at the church on North A Street. I was waving signs and chatting with people as they were coming from their cars. In the line-up of other people holding signs on the curb outside the poll, there was a man with a Golden/McNamara combination sign. We started chatting about the day and he said that he knew that two people on his street were voting for me - he and his wife! He didn't go on to explain the apparent disconnect between the signs that he was holding and their household's vote, but it proved my point that signs don't vote and they can be misleading.

There are many businesses, local business owners that happen to live in town or residents that don't want to indicate who they are voting for, especially when an incumbent is in the race. There are many quiet supporters out there that think, rightly or wrongly, that their business will be hurt or dealings with the city will be affected if they publicly display their preference. There are also households with multiple voters that may not be voting all the same way - another deceiving aspect of political signs.

Signs can also be a give away as to who your supporters are and they become targets of your opponent. I had reports of my opponent coming by three and four times to some houses with my sign in front - to the point that the residents told her to stop coming by that they weren't changing their vote. So, if you have a sign in your yard, be prepared to continually re-affirm your commitment to that candidate.

I also have it from a good source that a certain "side" targets the area near polling locations 72 hours before the election and selectively removes certain signs from the area.

If you have watched television over the past month, you are already sick of the political ads on TV for state and national races/issues. I'm starting to think that political TV ads are welfare for local TV stations. The cacophony is so great, I don't know how you could logically decide anything from the positive and negative ads choking the air waves - and I hope people have a greater knowledge of the candidates and issues that are subjects of the ads, but somehow I doubt that is the case.

In local races, the main costs are signs and mailings. Rarely, there are exceptions, can local races afford television time. Signs are a major hassle and are a lot to manage in running a campaign. On the positive side, they alert you that an election is coming and can show a degree of support for candidates. In Lake Worth, it seems, we have a culture of sign stealing which seems to be especially bad this year. Last year I actually took the time to number my signs and register them with people who had them in their yards. I don't know if that was a deterrent or not. But I do know that it was not as much as an issue last year compared with my first campaign. Name recognition is important, especially for candidates that do not have the power of incumbency. Signs can be a tool to "get your name out there."

Most of the signs are #5 plastic and contribute to the waste stream. Number 5 plastic is also one of the more difficult to recycle since it is already so cheap, especially in relation to the a recycled product. If we are a community that is built upon "sustainability", why do we allow signs at all? Think of the amount of money that would free up for the campaigns to do actually public outreach and canvassing materials. And, if you are stealing someones' signs, you are making it more expensive for them to run a campaign due to the cost to replace the stolen signs. I am sure this is part of the reason behind this dirty strategy. And it creates more plastic signs, adding to the waste stream.

Can we agree, for the sake of fair play and the environment, that we pledge not to steal signs?